Page images
PDF
EPUB

other harmful pollutants along our roads and highways will increase by a third. The air around us is an exhaustible resource which must be protected and conserved. To prevent increasing damage to property and health from exhaust fumes and to insure that our children and grandchildren will have clean air to breathe, we must begin the moves needed to stop this fouling of our environment now. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Long. Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the Honorable James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

I believe you have with you, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Dean W. Coston, a deputy from your office of Legislative Services.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DEAN W. COSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE SERVICES; VERNON G. MacKENZIE, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, CHIEF, DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; AND WESLEY E. GILBERTSON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND FOOD PROTECTION SERVICE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.'

I am also accompanied by Mr. Vernon G. MacKenzie, on my left, who is the Chief of the Division of Air Pollution, Public Health Service; and Mr. Wesley E. Gilbertson, who is Chief of the Public Health Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection. Mr. Chairman, I, Mr. MacKenzie, and Mr. Gilbertson all have statements which we will submit for the record, or read, or we will proceed in any way which will most suit your convenience and that of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. We are glad to have all of you gentlemen. And, Mr. Secretary, I suggest that you proceed as you desire. Mr. QUIGLEY. I will begin by reading my statement. I think theirs tends to be more specific, whereas mine, I hope, is a general overall view of the problem as we see it.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to be here on behalf of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to discuss the several legislative proposals now before the subcommittee dealing with the problem of air pollution.

The subject with which these hearings are concerned, air pollution, is an environmental problem of prime national importance. The extent to which this problem is increasing in the United States and the undeniable threat to the public health and welfare posed by air pollution demand that this problem be dealt with to the fullest degree which our knowledge and skills permit, not only today but in the years ahead.

The Clean Air Act of 1963, which this subcommittee had a major part in developing, is helping to create a new era in our Nation's efforts to arm itself against the air pollution foe. The various amend

ments and supplements to the Clean Air Act contained in the bills you have under consideration are intended to further strengthen and accelerate the national attack on air pollution. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is, therefore, emphatically in agreement with the major objectives sought by these legislative proposals. As our report to the chairman indicates, we recommend certain modifications in the proposed legislation, modifications which Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Gilbertson will discuss in some detail. We feel that the modifications which are being recommended for your consideration and approval would serve to improve the pending legislation by giving the Federal Government greater flexibility and additional essential tools for its broad pursuit of better air pollution control and solid waste disposal which would enable the Federal Government to be of even greater assistance to the State and local governments upon whom rests a major responsibility for the control of pollution.

In the 18 months since President Johnson signed the Clean Air Act, and especially in the 9 months since funds became available with which to implement the major new activities which the act calls for, I believe we have begun to see concrete evidence of the forging of a new national air pollution control effort, the central goal toward which the act is directed. In less than a year, the level of spending by State and local governments for air pollution control activities has increased by some 40 percent, chiefly as a result of the stimulus provided by the awarding, on a matching basis, of Federal grants-in-aid to State and local air pollution control agencies. Moreover, the Clean Air Act has helped to focus substantially increased attention on a number of aspects of the total air pollution problem, particularly the control of emissions associated with motor vehicles, Federal facilities, and the disposal of solid wastes.

These are, of course, among the areas with which pending legislation is primarily concerned, and they are unquestionably areas in which more progress and legislation are needed.

There is every reason to believe that the problem of automotive air pollution can be brought substantially under control by the adoption and enforcement of Federal standards limiting motor vehicle emissions. There are no longer any insoluble technical obstacles which prohibit real progress toward motor vehicle emission control. The State of California, by statute, has directed that virtually all new cars sold in that State beginning with the 1966 model year-and that means only about 3 months from now-be equipped with exhaust control systems limiting the amount of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide that may be discharged into the atmosphere. The automobile manufacturing industry has said it can comply with the California law and, moreover, that it could, if required by Federal law, equip all new cars with control systems by the 1968 model year, in other words, by the fall of 1967.

We have no doubt that such a great stride toward better air pollution control is in general technically feasible. Evaluation of the California experience during the next year, as well as evaluation of automobiles purchased for the Federal Government by the General Services Administration, which will be equipped with the same types of control systems slated for California, should give us valuable techni

cal information needed to guide both industry and government in the nationwide application of motor vehicle exhaust control systems.

We also feel, as our report indicates and as Mr. MacKenzie will discuss more fully, that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should be authorized to establish and amend such motor vehicle standards by regulation, as provided in the Senate bill, S. 306, which is now before this committee. To include in the law numerical standards on specific pollutants and, furthermore, to specify the technical ineans by which pollutant emissions should be measured would, we feel, make it difficcult, perhaps impossible, for the Nation to take prompt advantage of improvements in technology which can be expected to occur.

In the same connection, we believe that the proposed legislation on control of motor vehicle pollution would be strengthenned if the distinction between gasoline-powered and diesel-powered vehicles and engines were dropped. Although the type of engine and the type of fuel the engine is designed to use impose some differences in pollutional discharges and in the methods of controlling them, there would seem to be no need to postpone legislative authority for the establishment of standards for diesel-powered vehicles. We would favor treating the total motor vehicle population as a broad category of air pollution source. In this way the Secretary, without seeking additional legislative authority, could prescribe standards on broad classes of vehicles as soon as such standards are technically feasible.

The long-range effectiveness of motor vehicle pollution control will depend substantially upon proper maintenance and inspection of control systems incorporated in motor vehicles. The Federal Government should be prepared to assist State governments in developing the means for implementing inspection programs. At the present time, we are seeking through research the development of methods for simple and economical exhaust emission measurements suitable for incorporation in such inspection programs. We, therefore, recommend that consideration of means of federally stimulating the initiation of inspection systems be deferred.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are on the verge of a major, unprecedented advance in our efforts to cope with the contemporary air pollution problem. If we act decisively and prudently, we will begin to see progressively more broad and effective control of the motor vehicle as a source of air pollution. The adoption of S. 306, as modified in line with the Department's recommendations, would mark an important forward step toward freeing this Nation of the mounting smog burden, and the incalculable price we pay for it in terms of hazards to the public health and welfare. If we fail to take this step, we can surely look forward to a nationwide smog problem whose proportions none of us would care to contemplate.

The Clean Air Act contains a clear mandate to Federal agencies and departments to control pollution sources at Federal installations and facilities. The Federal Government has a responsibility to demonstrate by example the best results that can be achieved through proper application of air pollution control techniques and equipment. We are, therefore, in agreement with legislative proposals which would enable the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to

cooperate more effectively with and assist other Federal departments and agencies in their air pollution control efforts. The present Clean Air Act contains authority for establishment of a permit system for classes of Federal pollution sources designated by the Secretary of of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Several of the bills before you would eliminate the permit system from the Department's legislative authority. We recommend that such action be taken only if the performance standard setting authority implicit in the present law is otherwise provided.

We feel that the provision contained in several of the bills under consideration which would allocate all Federal air pollution control funds to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for redistribution to other agencies and departments, imposes a complex and administratively impractical step in the Federal budget process. It is our recommendation that, as proposed in the chaiman's bill, budget items for air pollution control be included in the appropriations authorized for expenditure by the individual agencies. This is, in our opinion, a more workable approach to the problem, and we recommend that this concept be incorporated in legislation to amend the Clean Air Act.

The Department has no objection to the directives contained in several of the bills before this subcommittee, to make training available to Federal personnel responsible for air pollution control, to evaluate control operations at Federal facilities and installations, and to gather and periodically transmit to Congress information on the status of air pollution control activities at Federal installations, all of which we consider helpful in strengthening the control of air pollution arising from Federal installations. The essential authority for these functions is included now in the Clean Air Act.

In our experience, the air pollution control problems at Federal installations are generally comparable to those encountered outside the Federal Government. They involve chiefly fuel combustion for heat and power, manufacturing, and refuse disposal. If we are sucessful in bringing Federal air pollution sources under the highest practicable degree of control, we will both eliminate sources of air pollution which add to the total pollution burdens in many American communities and we will demonstrate for all to see that the control of air pollution sources can be accomplished promptly and economically. We have, in short, a great opportunity to provide leadership by deed as well as by word.

I have asked Mr. Gilbertson to be here today to discuss in detail our recommendations with respect to a program to encourage needed progress in the important area of solid waste disposal, but I should like first to offer some general comments in this area.

President Johnson has recommended solid waste disposal legislation and the Solid Waste Disposal Act transmitted with our report is the administration's proposal. We urge its prompt consideration and

enactment.

The solid refuse disposal needs of our Nation, particularly in the urban areas where the great majority of Americans live, have far outstripped not only our facilities to dispose of refuse safely and economically but also our knowledge of how this task can be met. If we are not to bury our cities in mountains of refuse and worsen. rather than improve, such environmental problems as air and water pollu

tion, soil contamination, and pest control, we must do more than simply expand and proliferate presently used methods of refuse disposal. We must seek new methods of meeting this challenge and above all we must view this problem comprehensively. Its full scope entails more than the elimination of refuse by whatever means seems convenient, for this approach has contributed to the serious problem before us. We must instead consider solid waste disposal in all of its complex ramifications. It is not prudent to destroy usable materials along with unwanted wastes as we move into the future; we may wish to harness the power inherent in the heat of incinerator fires and to return to the earth those deposits which would enrich rather than despoil it. To explore this complex problem which we have neglected for much too long already, we need a national program of research, demonstrations, and technical and planning assistance.

From this point of view, there is no question that the Federal Government needs new authorities and resources to assist States and local governments in giving long overdue attention to the problem of solidwaste disposal. Basically, we favor the approach to this objective contained in title II of S. 306 as it was approved by the Senate. However, we are offering for your consideration a number of modifications proposed in the administration's draft bill which we believe would improve upon that language. Mr. Gilbertson will develop our recommendations more fully in his presentation.

The various bills before the subcommittee contain a number of additional provisions, which are dealt with in the Department's report, and on which I should like to comment briefly at this time.

We are certainly in agreement with the general objective of that provision in several of the bills which would increase the Department's laboratory and research facilities. We feel, however, that rather than a specific Federal air pollution control laboratory, the Congress should authorize the Secretary to establish, staff, and equip such facilities as he deems necessary to carry out the Department's responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. There is no question that the Division of Air Pollution is hampered by inadequate facilities at the present time, and that this inadequacy will become more critical as the pace of air pollution control nationally quickens. We feel that the Secretary should be authorized to establish additional facilities in recognition of the broad and changing needs of the Federal air pollution program. These should include, in addition to laboratories, space, and equipment for training, for evaluation of automotive and other air pollution control systems and for administration of expanding technical assistance and grant-in-aid programs.

We favor in principle proposals to encourage increased private expenditures for air pollution control. Since the proposals to encourage private expenditures for control now before this committee are directly related to national tax policy we would defer to the Department of the Treasury in this connection.

Several of the bills under consideration call for the establishment of additional technical advisory committees relating to specific portions of the Federal air pollution program. We recommend that these proposals be deleted from the legislation. The Department now makes use of consultants from within the Federal Government, from State and local governments, from industry, and from the field of research. Establishing additional committees by statute would not, in our opin

« PreviousContinue »